| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:36:45 -0400 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> CC: David Lang <david@...g.hm>, tux3@...3.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> Subject: Re: [FYI] tux3: Core changes On 05/26/2015 04:22 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On 05/26/2015 02:00 AM, Jan Kara wrote: >> So my opinion is: Don't fork the page if page_count is elevated. You can >> just wait for the IO if you need stable pages in that case. It's slow but >> it's safe and it should be pretty rare. Is there any problem with that? > > That would be our fallback if anybody discovers a specific case where page > fork breaks something, which so far has not been demonstrated. > > With a known fallback, it is hard to see why we should delay merging over > that. Perfection has never been a requirement for merging filesystems. On However, avoiding data corruption by erring on the side of safety is a pretty basic requirement. > the contrary, imperfection is a reason for merging, so that the many > eyeballs effect may prove its value. If you skip the page fork when there is an elevated page count, tux3 should be safe (at least from that aspect). Only do the COW when there is no "strange" use of the page going on. -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists